Subject: Re: 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
There is a dangerous misunderstanding of the term
"sovereign citizen" and I am surprised at Mr. Ferran's ignorant misuse
of it. "Sovereign Citizen" however styled is an oxymoron, as one cannot
be both a "sovereign" of any kind and at the same time a "citizen".
His own ignorance of the Law--- the actual Law as opposed to the private
"law" he evidently practices---is showing. Dave Comcast is not and has
never been a "Sovereign Citizen"---- he is a peaceful inhabitant of the
Continental United States claiming his birthright and objecting to the
abuse of Protected Persons by the Federal United States and the numerous
"governmental services corporations" being operated by international
banking cartels as if they were our lawful government.
The essence of the fraud and criminality can be reduced down to
press-ganging, personage, barratry, and inland piracy being practiced by
the corporate officers and employees of foreign governments acting in
violation of their charters and the treaties allowing their operations
on the land of the Continental United States. These are for the most
part capital crimes committed by Members of the Bar Associations, the
British Government, the Government of the Westminster City State, the
Lord Mayor of London, the Lords of the Admiralty, ELIZABETH II, the
"United States Congress" and "UNITED STATES CONGRESS" and others who are
in flagrant Breach of Trust, Commercial Contract, and International
Treaties establishing and separating the land and sea jurisdictions owed
to the United Colonies of America.
I suggest gentlemen that we cut the crap.
The fraud in its entirety is know. The criminality and the
perpetrators ---- are all known. There is no escape. There is no
redemption except a thorough repentance, confession of error, and
immediate action to correct. Dr. Cordero is exactly right and Mark R.
Ferran is either a dupe or a perpetrator seeking to villify the victims
of crimes so as to avoid his own culpability for their
mischaracterization and the identity theft and personage being routinely
practiced against the peaceful inhabitants of the Continental United
States.
Both inland piracy and press-ganging have been outlawed for 200
years. Both carry a range of penalties up to and including capital
punishment. Likewise, violation of the Geneva Convention Protocols of
1949, Volume II, Article 3 --- the mischaracterization of identity or
nationality of civilians --- is a death penalty offense.
Continue reading
This is very quickly coming to a head, gentlemen, and it is not the
victims of these crimes that we need to fear. It's ignorance and
self-service of the kind being displayed here by Mr. Ferran. Those who
are called to labor in the cause of justice must prepare themselves for a
number of rude shocks, not the least of which is that many honorable
men such as Dr. Cordero, have been unaware of the nature of the Bar
Associations and the agenda that these organizations have pursued in
America and thence throughout the world since 1845. They are supposedly
Juris Doctors who imagine that they understand the Law, but who
practice law. They can plainly read the prohibitions of the
Constitutions of the United States and the united States of America
against Titles of Nobility, and yet they dully imagine that they can
operate as public officials and impose their private corporate "law"
against the inhabitants of the Continental United States while accepting
the title of "Esquire". They also fail to question the meaning of the
word "license" as in "license to practice law" --- which clearly
indicates that they are involved in activities that would be criminal
but for permission granted by someone, somewhere. The "someone" was the
British Monarch acting in Breach of Trust in 1845 and secretively
issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to the Bar Associations.
Finally, they fail to notice that the "State Statutes" and the Uniform
Commercial Code are both held under private copyright. What "Public
Documents" do you know of that carry a private copyright? None. They
are all Public Domain without exception.
Therefore, Mr. Ferran, what you (most likely) and other members of
the Bar in this country have been practicing "at" not "in" is private
law in Civil Maritime misapplied to innocent Americans who have
trustingly and mistakenly held the members of the "legal profession" in
high regard. The other form of law met in the COURTS is "executive
admiralty"--- a form of "martial common law" that is not authorized by
anyone but a long-dead corporate Board of Directors.
I am attaching a list of the Dunn and Bradstreet Numbers of the
"United States of America" and the "State of States" operated as
franchises and a great many so-called "States" and "STATES" and
government agencies which are all privately owned and operated legal
fictions. This is just one tranch--- one "level" of the fraud being
committed internationally against innocent American civilians so as to
defraud them of their property. The old Federal Reserve System has died
a well-deserved death, but the UNITED STATES, INC., run by the IMF and
chartered in France has just as many corporate franchises or more, and
the new kid on the block, the newly created FEDERAL RESERVE being
operated by the UNITED NATIONS Corporation under United Nations
City-State auspices, has launched THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.----
all to the same purpose--- to steal the identities of the individual
living people and the Continental United States and to use various forms
of personage and credit fraud to enslave them, press-gang them into the
foreign international jurisdiction of the sea, and deprive them of
their rights and property.
This is being done to Americans, Canadians, Australians, English,
Scots, Welsh, Irish, German, Japanese, Greek, Italian, French, Danish
and most of the people of the Western World by those who have pretended
to be Allies and Friends and Trustees under the most solemn kinds of
National Trust Indentures, Constitutions (commercial contracts for
services) and international treaties and by international banking
cartels secretively operating governmental services corporations (as
shown above) under conditions of gross deceit and fraud as if these
corporations were the lawful government of nations, instead of
contractors providing services for pay.
Those awful "sovereign citizens" are acting under duress and using
the Uniform Commercial Code to post Financing Statement Claims in the
international record--- in a jurisdiction they should never have to
address if the Federal United States and their Agents were doing their
actual jobs. Innocent American civilians are being forced to post such
claims and create such Security Agreements as a result of Bar
Association predation, criminality, incompetence, and combined personage
and barratry committed routinely against their persons and estates. As
it stands the Bar Associations are acting as criminal syndicates on the
shores of the Continental United States, are in gross violation of the
Treaty allowing them to operate on the land, and in gross violation of
their Charter.
This situation isn't going to go away by pretending that American
civilians are "Paper Terrorists". It is appallingly apparent who the
real "Paper Terrorists" are--- and it is not Mom and Pop from Podunk,
Mississippi. Every Bar Association Member in America may be trembling
in their shoes and wondering what they are going to do when this
proverbial shit fully hits the fan, but those who "blame the victims"
are only making it worse for themselves and their brethren. The truth
of the matter is already fully known, fully documented, fully recorded
by courts of record including the Vatican Chancery, the British High
Court, the World Court, and others since 2009. What Dr. Cordero has
documented and what he has bravely opposed is what every Bar Member
needs to oppose, if they are to save their profession and their own
individual skins.
I suggest that you all examine the Laws of Admiralty and the
penalties that can and eventually will be imposed upon those Members of
the Bar who fail to immediately and fully seek to bring remedy to those
harmed --- and most especially to those "sovereign citizens" who have
had sense and courage enough to bring their claims forward ---even
despite their pitiful lack of familiarity with international and
commercial and martial law----and thus have pushed the Truth over the
edge and are now in the process of bringing this Evil and Oppressive
System to a well-deserved end.
Brave men like Doctor Cordero have always stood for what is right
and opposed what is wrong, even without the goad of imminent Justice
being done. The rest of the "Mixed Class" like Mr. Ferran, however, had
better consider their positon more akin to rats departing a sinking
ship and hope that they can swim fast enough in the right direction to
reach land ahead of the Tsunami brewing in the international
jurisdiction of the sea.
For Mr. Ferran and all those Bar Association Members who are so
vicously pursuing their old trade as inland pirates, insulting their
victims, and imagining that their criminality will never be discovered,
opposed, and punished---- the jig is up, the Public Liens are coming,
the American Military will not fire on the people they are hired to
protect, and the United Nations is in no position to do anything but
attempt to salvage its own reputation. It remains to be seen whether
Dr. Cordero's efforts and those of others like him will be sufficient to
prevent the outlawing and liquidation of the Bar Associations worldwide
and the permanent disgrace of the entire profession.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Mark R Ferran <mrferran@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Dr. Cordero,
I write to inform you that "Dave Comcast" ( David Lynn Coffelt) ("All rights preserved - U.C.C. - 1-308 formally 1-207")
is a member of a Cult known as "UCC/Redemption" and/or "sovereign
citizens". The members of this/these cults have effectively abandoned
and WAIVED and relinquished all civil rights they would have under the
Constitution and Laws of the United States, or the several states.
They are generally considered to be "paper terrorists", because of their
typical misuse of UCC-style papers in every forum, including Traffic
Court. They bring discredit to any organization or legitimate
enterprise they become associated with. And, they have zero
credibility. They lack a competent understanding the Law, as evidenced
by their misplaced esteem for the UCC as the cure for all problems.
Thus, it would be best if you declined any recognition or participation
by persons like David C who advertises his membership in the Cult known
as "UCC/Redemption" and/or "sovereign citizens".
----- Original Message -----
From: DAVE COMCAST
To:
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: 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. Cordero:
Thanks for asking what I would be able to contribute to your documentary on Re:
Black Robed Predators: a proposal for a documentary on how
unaccountable judges risklessly prey on your rights, property, and
liberty
I would offer to you all the evidence I personally
investigated and uncovered personally in my Spousal Discrimination
complaint DORA filed on my behalf in Nov 2004.
Jan 2006, DORA illegally dismissed my SPOUSAL DISCRIMINATION
charge by accepting unsigned evidence in default by the Isle of Capri's
Attorney Mark Barnes. DORA never did not holding my appeal hearing they
already accepted; this denying me due process.
DORA forced me into a District Court to begin with. Not only
did the judge also deny due process in the courts, he was committing
fraudd on the court and has done so for over 10 years as he was never a
DISTRICT court judge at any time in the State of CO certified by SOS Feb
20, 2013. A FREDERICK BARKER RODGERS had his COUNTY oath sworn to in
Jan 2007, forged on the back side 3.5 years later certified by the
SOS on July 8, 2010 that RODGERS is a District Court Judge.
May 7, 2012 I uncovered a "SMOKING GUN" of COUNTY COURT FREDERICK
BARKER RODGERS'S COUNTY OATH OF OFFICE, WHICH WAS MAILED TO BE BY
DEBORAH GEORGE, CLERK OF GILPIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ON SEPT 10, 2010
the following day after I had submitted Rodgers County Oath certified by
the SOS and demanded Rodgers to recuse himself from 2006CV32 which he
sat on the bench with no judicial authority.
When I uncovered this FRAUD I reported this fraud to every
state agency out there including every NEWS INVESTIGATOR who advertise;
Every News Investigator and Law Agency in Denver are aware of
this judicial and SOS fraud committed against my wife and I; yet they
all refuse to interview my wife and I and report it; likely b/c it is
too big of a story and they were ordered to stand dow, or if they did
report this Judicial Fraud it would likely ruin their careers, or their
scared. That would be my guess. Yet they advertise on TV everyday, "ARE
YOU A WHISTLE BLOWER, WE WANT TO KNOW".......they want to know JACK or
NADDA b/c they all know the fraud I have uncovered with documented
evidence provided to them all.
Keep in mind my civil 2006CV32 in Gilpin County DISTRICT
Court was held by an Imposter with no judicial authority at all who
denied due process and committed fraud on the court.
APRIL 6, 2014 - I CALLED TREASON ON A MUNICIPAL JUDGE IN LAKEWOOD COLORADO AND WITNESSED BY 3 OTHERS.
On a second issue I was in Court when I was alleged to have
committed a criminal traffic offense. This was a Motion to Dismiss
hearing submitted by the Prosecuting Attorney in Lakewood, CO
This was the same day my Jury Trial I paid for was to
commence. The Prosecuting Attorney wanting to dismiss this charge I was
cited for on November 19, 2014. A rouge Cop cited me when I was the
one who was sideswiped by an out of state driver. Cop accused me of
causing this accident saying b/c I would have had to get in the left
lane to get to work when I had just left work heading to a Dr's
appointment. I told Cop "don't you dare put words in my mouth b/c that
is just not going to happen. An hour later Cop serves me this CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT, a misdemeanor. At arraignment the Judge told me I am facing a
year in jail, fines, etc, wanting me to plead down to steal money from
me. I paid for a Jury Trial which was never held over my objection.
I called TREASON on the judge as again I was denied due
process when I would not plead down. I paid for a Jury Trial, was denied
by the Judge. I told her she is in violation of her oath of office, in
violation of the U.S. Constitution she took and oath to support and then
I yelled out in the Court YOU ARE COMMITTING TREASON ON RECORD. TREASON
was witnessed by 3 others and is on file. I have the evidence on this
also.
If you would let me know what you would like me to supply, it is yours.
Call me when you have time.
David Lynn Coffelt
720-206-8717 Cell
303-853-9914 Res
High Crimes by Federal & State Gov't Officials - Fraud on the Court
All rights preserved - U.C.C. - 1-308 formally 1-207
Fraud, Forgery,
Cover-up & Corruption under COLOR OF LAW by ACTORS of Judicial
& Executive State Officials with SOS forging Judge’s County Oath of
Office as a District Court Judge All reported to & ignored by
Judicial Commission, AG, DA and Denver FBI, DOJ, OIG, FBI - DC
FOR NEWS INTERVIEWS OR INVESTIGATIONS FEEL FREE TO CONTACT Mr. Coffelt directly.
Confidentiality Notice:
This private
email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of
the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential
Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities,
Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies),
International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s),
or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion
by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of
spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive
Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorised Review, Use,
Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights,
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not
constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or
Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.
OTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable...
Every step
toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle;
the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On Apr 19, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Dr.Richard Cordero, Esq. <riccordero@verizon.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. McCray,
There was no application to bring in cameras.
In
any event, the Rules of the New York State Chief Administrative Judge,
PART 131. Audio-visual Coverage Of Judicial Proceedings , http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/
The cell phones were not sequestered.
Mr. Doggart expressed interest in my proposal for the documentary Black Robed Predators(infra).
In what way could you contribute to making this documentary?
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
******************************
Re:
Black Robed Predators: a proposal for a documentary on how
unaccountable judges risklessly prey on your rights, property, and
liberty
A Proposal for a documentary on
two unique cases of wrongdoing at the top of government
that expose how federal judges
have become unaccountable in connivance with the other two branches and
consequently, engage risklessly in coordinated wrongdoing
by disregarding their duty, due process, and the rule of law
to prey on We the People’s rights, property, and liberty
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
1. Federal judges’ wrongdoing has been shown through the analysis of official statistics, reports, and statements[*>ii] in the study of the Federal Judiciary –whose procedural and evidentiary rules are followed by its state counterparts, for which it is the model– titled, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(*>jur:1) The analysis highlights their means, motive, and opportunity(jur:21§§1-3) for judges’ wrongdoing.
*NOTE: See my 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
or
or
or
or
or
If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:
Google Chrome:
or
Mozilla-Firefox:
In the downloaded file, the blue text represents active cross-referential links that facilitate jumping to the corresponding references to check them..
If you cannot download the file through any of those links, please let Dr. Cordero know by emailing him at Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.
2.
This article proposes its presentation in a documentary. It will
emphasize its most outrageous and corruptive enabling circumstance:
coordination(88§§a-c) among judges and between them and other insiders of the legal and bankruptcy systems[169], politicians(77§§5-6), and government entities(ol:19§D).
3. It will show that wrongdoing(jur:133§4) is not the deviant conduct of individual rogue
judges, but rather collective conduct that is coordinated to ensure
that doing wrong is safer, easier, and more beneficial. That encourages
further wrongdoing.
4.
So does a judge who keeps quiet about his peer’s wrongdoing, becoming
accessory after the fact concerning it and before the fact concerning
all future wrongdoing encouraged by the expectation of his silence. Such
implicit coordination corrupts the judge and his peers, putting them
‘in the same boat’ of mutually dependent survival due to complicity: The
judge is their accomplice before and after the fact and the peers are
wrongdoing principals.
5. Coordination
has allowed judges to develop the most harmful form of wrongdoing,
i.e., schemes, such as a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:66§§2-3), a concealment of assets scheme[107ac, 213], and a docket clearing scheme(43§1).
Coordination has made wrongdoing so widespread and routine that it is
the Federal Judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(ol:190).
A. The documentary’ financial viability: its market is huge
6. Every year 50 million new cases are filed in the state and federal courts[4,5].
To them must be added scores of millions of pending cases. Given that
every case involves at least two opposing parties, at least 100 million
persons and entities go and are brought to court annually.
7.
In fact, many more do so because a party can be composed of more than
one person or entity; it can even be composed of a class of hundreds of
thousands of persons similarly situated.
8.
To the parties must be added all those persons and entities that are
more or less directly affected by their litigation. These include
friends, relatives, employees, buyers, suppliers, investors, creditors,
debtors, shareholders, landlords, tenants, even the store on the corner,
who may see its business diminished because a party and others affected
by it can no longer afford to patronize its store, etc.
B. Two unique national stories to expose judges’ coordinated wrongdoing and provoke action-stirring outrage in the public during the long electoral season
9.
All those persons and entities actually form the national public. The
documentary can make that public aware of how it is affected by judges
who abuse their power to make self-beneficial decisions that with
disregard for due process of law dispose of litigants’ and
non-litigants’ rights, property, liberty, and lives. Thus, it can
provoke in the public action-stirring outrage(83§§2-3).
10. That is what two unique national stories(ol:55) can provoke. They can also expose top Democrat and Republican politicians[17a; jur:22¶31) who in their own interest and to the people’s detriment have allowed judges’ wrongdoing(5§3)
to fester. These are the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story –she
was his first nominee to the Supreme Court– and the Federal
Judiciary-NSA story.
11. A realistic plan of investigation(ol:66) based on numerous leads and reliable evidence[107a-c; jur:65§B) is available to pursue these stories through a Follow the money! investigation(ol:1) and a Follow it wirelessly! investigation(ol:19§D), respectively.
12. Such focused objective and advanced starting station facilitate the documentary’s production and reduce its cost and production lag.
C. A documentary that provides the dominant issue of the electoral season
13.
The documentary can be produced in time to , and even provide the
dominant issue of, the electoral season comprising the mid-term,
primary, and 2016 presidential election campaigns. It can do so to a greater extent than Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which earned over $200 million.
1. A documentary with apolitical, general public appeal
14.
A documentary on judges’ wrongdoing will appeal to the national public
regardless of any political affiliation or lack thereof, and
independently of any or no intention to vote in any election.
2. Insatiable public demand for information about judges’ wrongdoing
15.
Rather than exhaust its subject, the documentary will open the news and
publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. It will cause
the public to demand to be informed about:
a. judges’ motive, means, and opportunity to do wrong(21§§1-3);
b. explicit and implicit coordinated wrongdoing among judges and with others(88§§a-c); and
c. the extent, nature, and gravity of judges’ past and ongoing unaccountability and wrongdoing, e.g., “demeanor, abuse of power, bias, conflict of interest, bribery, incompetence”(10,11).
3. Meeting a low standard can cause high-level resignations & impeachments
16. To be effective, the documentary only has to show that judges have violated the injunction in their own Code of Conduct “to avoid even the appearance of impropriety”[123a]. Their “appearance” of lack of respect for legal and ethical provisions in their own conduct will detract from the required trust in their having respected them enough to apply them fairly and impartially to other people’s conduct.
17. This is reasonable and precedented: Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign in 1969 after Life
magazine made his hold on office untenable by showing that he had
engaged in financial improprieties, though they did not even amount to
misdemeanors(92§d).
18.
Thus, the documentary can cause a flood of motions to vacate judgments
and hold new trials of cases argued to, or tried before, judges who
appear to have committed improprieties. This flood and the chaos into
which it will throw the Federal Judiciary –eventually having the same effect on the state judiciaries– will work as free advertisement for the documentary.
4. Launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges
19.
The above developments will prompt ever more journalists and media
outlets to jump on the investigative bandwagon of judges’ wrongdoing in
coordination with other parties, lest their audience go elsewhere to
satisfy their demand for news thereon.
20. Thereby the documentary will launch the first-ever, Watergate-like(4¶¶10-14)
generalized media investigation of the Federal Judiciary. Such
ever-expanding investigation will provide a constant reminder of the
documentary as its starting point and continuing point of reference.
21. The journalists’ investigation can be guided by a query that already(id.)
proved to be devastating and that can be adapted as follows; and by a
related query that finds its foundation in current events:
i. The President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation
What did the President know
about his first Supreme Court nominee, Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor, being involved in both concealing assets –which The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico(jur:65fn107a) suspected her of doing, and which is done to commit the crimes(ol:5fn10) of tax evasion(jur:65fn107c) and money laundering– and abusing the Federal Judiciary’s and/or the NSA’s computer network –see story ii. infra–;
but did the President cover it up and lie to the American public by
vouching for her honesty because he wanted to ingratiate himself with
those petitioning him to nominate another woman and the first Hispanic
to replace Retiring Justice Souter and from whom he expected in exchange
support for the passage of the Obamacare bill in Congress; and if so,
when did he know it?
ii. The Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation
To what extent do federal judges abuse their vast computer network and expertise –which handle hundreds of millions of case files(`)– either alone or with the quid pro quo assistance of the NSA –up to 100% of whose secret requests for secret surveillance orders are rubberstamped(ol:5fn7) by the federal judges of the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)– both to conceal assets –a crime(ol:5fn10), unlike surveillance– by electronically transferring them between declared and hidden financial accounts(ol:1), and to cover up the judges’ wrongdoing by interfering with the communications –also a crime(ol:5a.fn13)– of would-be exposers and prevent them from joining forces to expose them; and if so, since when?(ol:69§C)
(See the statistical analysis supporting probable cause to believe that there has been communications interference(ol:19§Dfn2.))
22.
The investigation guided by this query can generate distrust of top
public officers and make improprieties –even criminal conduct[ol:7, 10]– appear that lead to their resignation or impeachment.
5. Public demand for official investigations by the authorities
23.
The intensifying outrage will stir up the public to demand official
investigations by Congress, DoJ-FBI, and an independent prosecutor.
Their more intrusive powers to issue subpoena, search & seizure and
contempt orders, indictments, to interrogate, place under oath, plea
bargain, hold public hearings, etc., will allow them to make findings
that will further outrage the public.
6. From an outraged public that demands reform to a civic movement
24.
The stream of outrageous findings during the electoral season will stir
up the public to demand that both incumbents commence and candidates
pledge to undertake fundamental judicial reform(158§§6-7).
This can turn judges’ wrongdoing into an issue that shapes or even
dominates the campaigns because it concerns the practical meaning and
safeguard of a tenet of our republic:
a. We the People, the only source of political power in ‘government of, by, and for the people’[172], are the masters who have hired public officers as servants, including judicial servants, to perform services in the People’s behalf.
b. We are entitled to subject them to ‘reverse surveillance’(ol:29) to obtain the information needed to dispel the secrecy(27§e) of their performance in order to hold them accountable and liable to the victims of their wrongdoing(160§8).
c. A documentary intent on causing the People to assert in practice this tenet can prompt the emergence of a civic movement(164§9) that demands a new We the People-government paradigm: the People’s Sunrise.
d. By empowering the People to reestablish themselves as the masters of government, the documentary will be endowed with unequaled
moral force and inspire a sense of mission: To implement the principle
that ‘in government, not of men, but by the rule of law’[ol:6], Nobody is Above the Law, and ensure that judges and politicians are committed to delivering Equal Justice Under Law.
D. An outraged public can force politicians to amend the Constitution
25.
The documentary can show how the three branches of government have
connived to participate in, or tolerate, judges’ trampling underfoot the
rule of law to squeeze out for expediency and their benefit the
strictures of due process and dish out its residue: the lees of justice.
26.
Nothing can outrage the national public as a showing thereof. No force
can more strongly push for such convention than an outraged national
public. Hence, provoking such outrage can constitute the necessary means
to convince the public of the need for a constitutional convention and
the content of the amendments.
27.
The national public has the unique power to punish politicians who are
insensitive to its mood and demands by withholding donations,
volunteered work, and word of mouth support, and issuing the threat of
defeat at the polls. The precedent for such popular conduct is the Tea
Party, a civic movement that forces politicians to support it or risk
having their careers terminated.
28. However, before a constitutional convention is convened on the strength of the 34 states that have called for it[270>Ln:309],
there must be exposed how those who claim the preeminent right to
interpret the Constitution, federal judges, have become unaccountable in
connivance with politicians and consequently, engage risklessly in
self-beneficial coordinated wrongdoing by disregarding their duty, due
process, and the rule of law to prey on We the People’s rights, property, and liberty.
29.
Such exposure will make it possible to determine the full extent of the
constitutional amendments needed to ensure that judges perform(Lsch:10¶6) transparently and are held accountable, disciplinable, and liable to compensate their victims by We the People.(jur:158§§6-8)
E. Joining forces to produce the documentary and become Champions of Justice
30.
Thus, I encourage you, the Reader, and all other advocates of honest
judiciaries to join forces to produce this documentary. By exposing
judges’ wrongdoing in coordination with politicians and others, it can
play a key role in the coming electoral season, lead to government reform, and earn us any of many material and moral rewards(ol:3§F), such as becoming recognized by a grateful People as their Champions of Justice.
You may share and post this article widely. Meantime, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
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 your email reaching him
at least at one of those addresses.
Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:
or
******************************
Dr. Cordero,
Were you all able to get cameras or cell phones in court?
Michael McCray
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 19, 2015, at 2:57 PM, "Dr.Richard Cordero, Esq." <riccordero@verizon.net> wrote:
Dear Messrs. Doggart, Jacobs, McCray, Krichevsky, Ferran, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
Thank you for attending oral argument last Thursday, April 16, or inquiring about its outcome.
A. Evidence that the appellate judges had not read the brief
Only
the presiding judge had a stack of 8.5” x 11” papers that he said
corresponded to the 20 appeals on the oral argument calendar for the
day. The other three judges –there were only four of them– did not have
any papers in front of them. Only one of the judges had a pad on which
she took notes while I was arguing.
It
is reasonable to assume that if the judges had read either my or the
other parties’ briefs, they would have made notes on them and written
questions that they wanted to ask of the parties during oral argument,
and accordingly, would have brought those briefs to oral argument.
In
fact, although I was the one who argue by far the longest, the judges
did not ask of me any questions that they had brought with them.
Instead, the questions that they asked were directly related to what I
had just said.
I
kept eye contact with them all the time except for the one occasion
when I looked down at my outline to see the reference of a law that I
was quoting. I saw them looking back at me, as opposed to being
distracted looking elsewhere. It appeared as though they were paying
attention to what I was saying.
B. An outline that emphasizes arguing the law, not facts or emotions
The
bulletpoint-like outline(infra) that I used at oral argument highlights
the many rules of statutory and case law that I argued. They are in
boldface to show that I argued the law on appeal, rather than the facts
or emotions, as so many pro se appellants and respondents do.
Therefore,
I would like to make it available to all Advocates of Honest
Judiciaries because they may find it useful in preparing their own
outlines of their law-centered oral arguments.
So I encourage you to share and post this email widely.
C. Will these state judges dispose of the appeal as federal circuit judges get rid of up to 91% of appeals?
It
may take months for these state appellate judges to issue their
decision. They could dispose of the appeal as their counterparts in the
federal circuit courts do:
Federal circuit judges get rid of 75%(* >jur:44fn66)
of appeals by issuing summary orders bearing only one operative word,
most frequently ‘affirmed’, since a denial would defeat its
workload-dumping purpose by requiring judges to sit down to read the
briefs, analyze them in light of the law, and write a decision
identifying the reversible error and explaining why it is such so that
it is not committed again by the lower court on remand.
or
or
or
or
or
If
these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download
either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above
into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which is
close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:
Google Chrome:
or
Mozilla-Firefox:
Moreover,
federal circuit judges expediently dispose of up to an additional 16%
of appeals with decisions whose reasoning is so “perfunctory”(jur:44fn68) that the judges who wrote them mark them “not for publication” and “not precedential”(jur:43§1).
These
‘decisions’ are contemptuous of a system of law based on precedent,
like ours; and ashamed of public scrutiny, which explains why almost all
of them avoid being linked to any judge by not being signed, but rather
being issued per curiam, that is, by an impersonal “the court”.
Federal
circuit judges use summary orders and unpublished, non-precedential
decisions as process-abusive instruments for clearing their desktops of
work and exercising arbitrary, biased, ad hoc raw judicial power(jur:44fn69).
They
breach the contract for judicial adjudicative services that was formed
between the judges and the parties who paid the court-required filing
fee and who participated in the process because they frustrate the
reasonable expectation that the controversy between the parties would be
resolved, not through an autocratic, reasonless fiat, but rather by
application of the rule of law based on fundamental principles of the
administration and nature of justice:
“"Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." "Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice"(jur:44fn71).
A
study of each state judiciary similar to the one that I conducted of
the Federal Judiciary can shed light on how state appellate judges use
their judicial power. That is one of the tasks of the proposed institute
for judicial unaccountability reporting and reform advocacy(jur:130§5).
I look forward to hearing from you and from those with whom you share this email.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq.,
when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email accounts and paste
it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your
email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:
or
******************************
Dr. Cordero,
Did you have your oral arguments today... How did it go? What happened?
Michael McCray
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 14, 2015, at 10:13 AM, "Dr.Richard Cordero, Esq." <riccordero@verizon.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. Valentine and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
Thank you for the information that you so kindly sent me.
I
would like to encourage you to participate in the mass emailing and
widest posting possible of the statement on oral argument below that I
will hold this coming Thursday, April 16, at 10:00 a.m., at the venue
indicated below, in a test case on holding a judge liable for
disregarding the law and the facts and causing a pro se injury in fact.
It is accompanied by an article on the out-of-court strategy for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.
Time is of the essence and acting promptly would be most effective.
I thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.
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.
Watch
the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont
Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing
about judicial reform, at:
or
******************************
Re: 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.
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/
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/
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.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.
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.
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
or
or
or
or
or
If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:
Google Chrome:
or
Mozilla-Firefox:
Watch
the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont
Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing
about judicial reform, at:
or
******************************
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.
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:
or
or
or
or
or
If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, try using:
Google Chrome:
or
Mozilla-Firefox:
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.
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.
Watch
the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont
Webre, JD, Med, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing
about judicial reform, at:
or
******************************
Dear Richard,
First
would you please so kind as to change our point of contact, please
forward all mail to my personal not business email address which joelrvalentine@gmail.com and remove jrvalentine@laneconstruct.com from your mailing list.
Also, I would like for you to look at this receive ruling in PA, it may help.
Best,
Joel Valentine
From: Dr.Richard Cordero, Esq. [mailto:riccordero@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 10:04 PM
To: marcia.rock@nyu.edu; Stephen.Engelberg@propublica.
Subject: 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
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 10:04 PM
To: marcia.rock@nyu.edu; Stephen.Engelberg@propublica.
Subject: 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.
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 an
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
___________ Attachment _______________
DUNS Numbers of the US Corporate Government and Most of
Its Major Agencies
United States Government-052714196
US Department of Defense (DOD)-030421397
US Department of the Treasury-026661067
US Department of Justice (DOJ)-011669674
US Department of State-026276622
US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)-Office
of the Secretary-112463521
US Department of Education-944419592
US Department of Energy-932010320
US Department of Homeland Security-932394187
US Department of the Interior-020949010
US Department of Labor-029536183
US Department of Housing & Urban Development
(HUD)-Office of the Secretary-030945779
US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-931691211
US Transportation Security Administration (TSA)-050297655
US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-056622429
Bureau of Customs & Border Protection (CBP)-796730922
Federal Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement
(ICE)-130221646
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-057944910
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
(NASA)-003259074
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)-079933920
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-364281923
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-037751583
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-020309969
US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)-003475175
US Public Health Service (USPHS)-039294216
National Institutes of Health (NIH)-061232000
US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
(CDC)-927645465
US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-138182175
US Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-040539587
Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Fed)-001959410
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-878865674
National Security Agency (NSA)-617395215
US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)-167247027
Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms & Tobacco
(BAFT)-132282310
Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-926038563
Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)-926038407
DUNS Numbers of Each US Corporate State and Its Largest
City
State of
Alabama-004027553 City
of Birmingham-074239450
State of
Alaska-078198983 City
of Fairbanks-079261830
State of
Arizona-068300170 City
of Phoenix-030002236
State of
Arkansas-619312569
City of Little Rock-065303794
State of
California-071549000
City of Los Angeles-159166271
State of
Colorado-076438621 City
of Denver-066985480
State of
Connecticut-016167285 City
of Bridgeport-156280596
State of
Delaware-037802962 City
of Wilmington-067393900
District of Columbia-949056860 City
of Washington-073010550
State of
Florida-004078374
City of Miami-965299576
State of
Georgia-069230183 City
of Atlanta-065372500
State of
Hawaii-077676997 City
of Honolulu-828979612
State of
Idaho-071875734
City of Boise-070017017
State of
Illinois-065232498
City of
Chicago-556057206
State of
Indiana-071789435 City
of Indianapolis-964647155
State of Iowa-828089701 City
of Davenport-963855494
State of
Kansas-827975009
City of Wichita-069862755
State of
Kentucky-828008883
City of Louisville-943445093
State of
Louisiana-0612389911 City
of New Orleans-033692404
State of
Maine-061207536 City
of Portland, Maine-071747802
State of
Maryland-847612442 City
of Baltimore-052340973
State of
Massachussetts-138090548 City of
Boston-007277284
State of Michigan-054698428 City
of Detroit-021733631
State of
Minnesota-050375465 City
of Minneapolis-009901959
State of
Mississippi-008210692
City of Jackson-020864955
State of
Missouri-616963596
City of Kansas (City)-832496868
State of
Montana-945782027 City
of Billings-068925759
State of
Nebraska-041472307 City
of Omaha-926604690
State of
Nevada-123259447 City
of Las Vegas-019342317
State of New Hampshire-066760232 City
of Manchester-045009073
State of New
Jersey-067373258 City
of Newark-019092531
State of New Mexico-007111818 City of
Albuquerque-129962346
State of New
York-041002973 City
of New York-021741036
State of North
Carolina-830979667 City
of Charlotte-809275006
State of North
Dakota-098564300 City
of Bismarck-080245640
State of
Ohio-034309166
City of Columbus-010611869
State of
Oklahoma-050411726 City
of Oklahoma (City)-073131542
State of
Oregon-932534998 City
of Portland (Oregon)-054971197
State of
Pennsylvania-933882784 City
of Philadelphia-929068737
State of Rhode
Island-008421763 City
of Providence-069853752
State of South
Carolina-067006072 City
of Columbia-878281562
State of
Tennessee-04143882 City
of Memphis-051386258
State of
Texas-002537595
City of Houston-967421590
State of
Utah-009094301
City of Salt Lake City-017096780
State of
Vermont-066760240 City
of Burlington-037442977
State of
Virginia-047850373
City of Virginia Beach-074736299
State of
Washington-079248936 City
of Seattle-009483561
State of West
Virginia-828092515 City
of Charleston (West Virginia)-197931681
State of
Wisconsin-001778349
City of Milwaukee-004779133
State of
Wyoming-832826015 City
of Cheyenne-021917273
DUNS Numbers of the United Nations Corporation and Some
of Its Major Corporate Agencies
United Nations (UN)-824777304
UN Development Program (UNDP)-793511262
UN Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization
(UNESCO)-053317819
UN World Food Program (UNWFP)-054023952
UN International Children’s Education Fund
(UNICEF)-017698452
UN World Health Organization (WHO)-618736326ro
No comments:
Post a Comment