Source: http://www.judicial-discipline-reform.org/
Timestamp: 2015-11-25 02:07:58
Document Index: 587987407

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§1', '§1', '§2', '§2', '§1', '§1', '§5', '§4', '§4', '§2', '§31', '§4', '§6', '§3', '§3', '§1', '§1', 'art 36', '§2', '§2', '§1', '§2', '§3', '§2', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§5', '§1', '§3', '§6', '§3', '§5', '§4', '§2', '§2']

Judicial Discipline Reform | A study of judges' unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing; how to expose it and bring about judicial reform
Recent Posts	Proposal for developing the auditing of judges’ decisions using the database of Harvard Law Library and Ravel Law
Business proposal for turning a profit with a team of professionals that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform
Auditing Judges Exposing judges’ wrongdoing by finding commonalities in their disregard of the facts and the law that reveal patterns of wrongdoing that denies due process and equal protection of the law
Business proposal for drawing business opportunities from the untapped news, publishing, and legal assistance market and the huge voting block of dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems and the victims of wrongdoing judges by taking advantage of the Presidential Election Campaign
Proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc
WordPress.org	Proposal for developing the auditing of judges’ decisions using the database of Harvard Law Library and Ravel Law	Messrs. Daniel Lewis, CEO; Nik Reed, CEE;
Posted on November 17, 2015November 17, 2015Author Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.Leave a comment on Proposal for developing the auditing of judges’ decisions using the database of Harvard Law Library and Ravel Law	Business proposal for turning a profit with a team of professionals that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform	By
provided it is in its entirety and without any addition, deletion, or modification, and credit is given to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
A. Unaccountability makes power absolute and corruptive, which leads to wrongdoing
Can you imagine what would happen to you if all police officers, doctors, and priests:
a. held their jobs for life(* >jur:21§a) together with self-disciplining authority*>18a that enabled them to assure their impunity by systematically and without any investigation(jur:25§c) dismissing 99.82%(jur:24§b) of your complaints(jur:10-15) against them;
All (blue text)references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:324). _________________________
b. were in fact beyond investigation by law enforcement authorities, never mind prosecution, and thus had no fear of suffering any adverse consequences from their wrongdoing, not even losing their jobs(jur:54§d) or having their salaries docked12, let alone having to compensate their victims; but instead
c. ruled on $100s of billions annually(jur:27§2)…
d. in the secrecy of closed-door meetings(jur:27§e); and
e. by disposing of 75% of their cases through summary order forms(jur:43§1) with no reasoning and only one operative word, overwhelmingly “Denied”; and of up to another 11% of cases by decisions so perfunctory that they marked them “Not for publication” and “Not precedential”(jur:43§1), allowing those decisions to be inconsistent, arbitrary, in principle unfindable and in effect unreviewable(jur:45§§2-3, 48§2) but capable of depriving you of your property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that determined your life and that of everybody you dealt with?(ol:190¶¶1-7)
Would those police officers, doctors, and priests be likely to abuse such absolute and corruptive power28 risklessly for their own benefit(ol:173¶93)?
The life-tenured, unaccountable judges of the Federal Judiciary, the models for their state counterparts, wield that kind of power(jur:65§§1-3).
B. Recruiting a team for the business venture of exposing judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing
My study of judges and their judiciaries analyzes(jur:21§§1-3) official judicial statistics, reports, and statements(jur:iii/fn.ii) that reveal that judges are unaccountable. Consequently, they risklessly grab benefits through wrongdoing(jur:3§5; ol:154¶3) even as they harm millions of parties and the rest of the public, from lowly pro ses to the largest companies in business(jur:29¶46).
Knowledge is Power…and stronger if used with discretion: One need not accuse any judge of wrongdoing to be able to use the knowledge of judges’ wrongdoing to protect oneself from those judges and gain a competitive advantage over opposing parties that know less or nothing about it.
My study contains a business proposal that appeals to recruiters of lawyers and journalists, particularly those involved in investigative journalism, as well as other professionals(jur:128§4), such as accountants, statisticians, and Information Technology experts(jur:130§b). This is so because a recruiter can put together a team that can make money(jur:156§f) as well as a nationally recognized name for himself or herself by:
a. “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(jur:119§E); and
b. providing legal advice and representation to the many parties who having learned that the judges in their cases failed to respect the injunction in their codes of conduct, i.e., to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”123a, will want to retain lawyers celebrated(ol:258¶18) for having exposed such impropriety, to recuse such judges, vacate their decisions, reopen and retry their cases, and obtain compensation for the material, physical, and moral harm that they caused those parties. Other people and entities that were foreseeably harmed by wrongdoing judges will also prefer to hire such lawyers because of their expertise in the issue.
C. There is money in holding people with a duty of care accountable
Judging from the flood of motions provoked by cases of judicial wrongdoing and police corruption, the high damages awarded in medical malpractice cases, and the well over $2 billion already paid by the Catholic Church due to its cover-up of pedophilic priests, the market for holding also judges accountable is likely to be huge and very profitable. This is especially so if it implicates judges who have been on the bench for a long time, are sitting on the highest court of their jurisdiction, and have operated in coordination with other judges; their appointed officials, such as trustees, guardians, and receivers; lawyers who appear before them; and parties that are rich, influential, or related to them; all of whom form a deep pocket.
a. Cf. The Youth Law Center helped expose the ‘kids for cash’ case where judges in Pennsylvania committed juveniles to for-profit youth jails, which were paid by the state per juvenile housed therein and which gave the judges a kickback per committed juvenile. The Center reached a $2.5 million settlement in a class action against those jails.
D. The accountability of other professionals is precedent for treating judges equally accountable Police officers, doctors, priests, and their respective institutions can be held accountable and liable to compensate their victims. They are precedent for the proposition that judges must hold their wrongdoing peers and judiciaries likewise liable, lest they violate the due process and equal protection clauses(ol:297:Excerpt) by exonerating themselves from any accountability and liability, thereby arrogating(jur:26§d) to themselves the status of Judges Above the Law.
Judges’ wrongdoing can outrage(ol:135) and attract the attention of everybody who believes to be entitled to Equal Justice Under Law as part of the American birthright and that has at least an intuitive notion of ‘fair play and substantial justice’.
E. Taking advantage of the need of each of the all-too many presidential candidates to stand out and win over a huge untapped voting bloc
There are 20 presidential candidates and counting. Each one needs to stand out of the pack. A recruiter can take advantage of that need by offering to any and each chief of staff of a presidential candidate to hold an individualized presentation(ol:197§G) to the candidate, the chief, and their aides on:
a. the already available evidence of judges’ wrongdoing(jur:21§§A,B);
b. the proposal for them to voice in their own electoral interest the complaints of those dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems, including victims of wrongdoing judges, for they constitute a huge(ol:272¶4) untapped voting bloc in search of their Champion of Justice, whom they would reward with significant donations, volunteer campaign workers, and so many attendees at rallies as to warrant journalistic coverage; as well as
c. the proposal for the candidate to turn the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing into his or her hallmark by pursuing with the recruiter’s team and the candidate’s own opposition research team two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B) apt to starkly illustrate the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing.
To that end, a recruiter can put together a team of lawyers, journalists(jur:xlv§§G,H), and other professionals(jur:128§4) to investigate(ol:194§E) as discreetly as wanted those two unique national stories(ol:191§§A,B), which makes for a pinpointed and hence cost-efficient investigation.
Those stories can most effectively grab national attention if first broken by one or more presidential candidates(ol:311). Indeed, by making the initial, Emile Zola’s I accuse!-like(jur:98§2) denunciation of judges’ wrongdoing at a press conference or national network interview, a candidate can provoke such national outrage as to stir up the public to demand of every candidate that he or she call for nationally televised hearings –similar to those held by the Watergate Senate Committee(jur:4¶¶10-14) and the 9/11 Commission– on judges’ wrongdoing and advocate judicial reform. A candidate who refused to do so could be identified as a wrongdoing politician(jur:22§31) protecting wrongdoing judges. This could cause the candidate to lose so much popular support as to be forced to drop out of the race.
As a result, the outrage can set off a scandal(ol:64§C) that would generate:
a. insatiable demand for updating news and analysis;
b. a flood of motions to revisit every decision and ruling made by judges who have failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety”(jur:92§d); and
c. an issue so important to the integrity of our ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’ol:5fn6, as to make judges’ wrongdoing dominate the campaign and be decisive of the presidential election.
F. Recruiting and working with journalists and lawyers can prove very profitable
Ever more journalists covering presidential candidates will jump on the investigative bandwagon to further investigate and expose judges’ wrongdoing because ‘scandal sells copy’. It follows that journalists could not afford not to cover the scandal since that would drive their audience away from them and to the competitors who offered the coverage that the audience demanded.
In addition, ambitious journalists will see the judicial wrongdoing scandal as an opportunity to make a scoop or provide the most insightful analysis and thereby win a Pulitzer Prize.
Moreover, journalists’ cumulative findings that will by drip-drip reveal judges’ wrongdoing as the judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi(jur:49§4), will keep the scandal on the front pages and the top of newscasts for years to come, as was the case with the Watergate scandal, which caused the resignation of President Nixon on August 8, 1974, and the imprisonment of all his White House aides3.
Those findings will provoke new motions to join the flood of motions and give rise to class actions to revisit the rulings and decisions of judges who failed to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” and obtain compensation from the judiciary that enabled(jur:88§§a-c) judges to abuse their power at the expense of parties and other people. Moreover, it will give rise to a demand from many different parties for legal advice on, and lobbying for, judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) that advances their respective interests.
Such steady work for the team can keep a strong revenue stream flowing for a long time even after Election 2016 is over. It supports the projection of a high return on the investment in forming the team and making the effort to present the proposal to presidential candidates(ol:331).
G. Offer to make a presentation on this proposal to you and your clients
I offer to present this business proposal to you and your colleagues and clients at a video conference or in person. Therefore, you may share this proposal with them.
Posted on October 15, 2015October 28, 2015Author Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.Leave a comment on Business proposal for turning a profit with a team of professionals that exposes judges’ wrongdoing and advocates judicial reform	Auditing Judges Exposing judges’ wrongdoing by finding commonalities in their disregard of the facts and the law that reveal patterns of wrongdoing that denies due process and equal protection of the law	By
A. Anecdotic allegations v. pattern evidence of judges’ wrongdoing
A party to a lawsuit cannot merely allege in court that the judge is biased or is engaged in other wrongdoing and thereby cause a judge to recuse herself or have her disqualified. The party must provide evidence of his allegations; otherwise, the allegation will be dismissed as impressionistic and anecdotic, and the party will be disparaged by being labeled ‘a disgruntled loser’.
The most convincing way of making such allegations is by identifying in one’s case an instance of conduct, an event, statement, position, person, name, address, date, number, quantity, etc., that is the same as, or similar to, another in the same case or in several of them, or better yet, in a statistically representative sample of related cases, e.g., those presided over by the same judge or in the same court or jurisdiction: These are commonalities.
When connected, they form a pattern of wrongdoing(* >ol:154¶3). It is like finding in a judge’s conduct and written or oral statements dots with a common color or shade that when connected reveal a figure: the face of a wrongdoing judge(* >jur:10:Nature of…).
All (blue text)references hereunder are keyed to the study, where they are active cross-referential links, and where this article is found at page (ol:274). _________________________
4. Pattern evidence is the picture in, “A picture is worth a thousand words” of mere allegations of parties, never mind pro ses. That is what auditing a judge means.
So a party can either: a. whine about allegations without evidence, which are unconvincing and self-defeating; or
b. think and proceed strategically(Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C) to expose the judge’s disregard of facts and the law, bias, conflict of interests, etc.; obtain relief now; and for the wrong done to the party by the judge as well as by the judiciary that failed to supervise and discipline her obtain perhaps even compensation from both in future.
A party that chooses the latter, strategic course of action can:
a. gather raw data, e.g., judges’ calendars, rulings, and decisions or even the whole record of cases to glean her statements from transcripts, dockets, party contact information; and
b. examine them and compare notes with other parties in search of commonalities that reveal patterns of wrongdoing that deny parties due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the state and the U.S. constitutions, the laws thereunder, court rules, etc.;
c. use such pattern evidence in an appeal to the highest state court and thereafter to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it hardly ever reaches because most pro ses do not know how and cannot afford to appeal, so that a case that does make it there can become a test case; and
d. additionally produce concrete, verifiable evidence of wrongdoing(jur:5§3) reasonably calculated to attract the attention of journalists(ol:197§1) in search of a scoop(ol:199§H) and so outrage the public(ol:193§D) as to stir it up to force politicians to call for judges to be held accountable and investigated at nationally televised hearings (ol:273¶¶5-7).
Exposing judges in court with convincing evidence does not mean obtaining relief from the presiding judges. Relief can come through its publicity effect on outsiders(ol:271):
The all-too many presidential candidates that have entered the 2016 Campaign are in dire need to be among the limited number of them who will be invited to the candidates’ debates, and survive the early primaries. Whether honestly or opportunistically, they can choose to become the champions of the huge(ol:272¶4) untapped voting bloc of people dissatisfied with the legal system, especially those among them most passionately committed to exposing wrongdoing judges: their victims.
Patterns can be expressed in percentages of all cases of a given type, e.g., how many times a commonality pointing to bias was detected, such as how many times a judge dismissed a case brought by a pro as compared to similar cases brought by a represented party where she denied a motion to dismiss. Patterns can be represented in charts(jur:9); tables(jur:10,11,15,16); and classic graphs of X,Y coordinates(jur:12-14).
There are many forms for visually representing sets of values, e.g., side by side columns to compare percentages; bell curves for normal distributions; pie charts for shares of a whole, time lines that indicate fluctuations over time as well as trends; intersecting circles for shared characteristics, etc. These are statistical concepts that go from the very simple, which parties may be using without knowing it to represent the ups and downs of their income and their home budget, to the more sophisticated.
The above describes how the pursuit of an unconventional, strategic course of action in court by go-getters can provide support for, and lead to, an out-of-court strategy(ol:236) for exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform at a politically favorable juncture.
The use of statistics in court was introduced by Then-Attorney Brandeis
Statistics have been used in courts for a very long time since the first time, one which provides an illustrious precedent: Before Louis Brandeis became a justice of the Supreme Court in 1916, he was an effective litigator advocating progressive causes. He won his cases, not only by arguing the law, but also by writing briefs where he presented socio-economic data and treated it with as much rigor as if it were legal evidence.
The best known of such briefs of his was filed in Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S.Ct. 324 (1908). There Then-Attorney Brandeis used social and economic studies to argue successfully to the Supreme Court that it should uphold statutes limiting workdays for women to a maximum of 10 hours. His briefs were so innovative and persuasive that they gave rise to a new type of brief: the Brandeis brief. They contributed to ushering in a more just society and thus, to making history. In time, Brandeis became a justice.
Programs such as Excel and PowerPoint turn massive amounts of numeric data into color graphs that Brandeis could not dream of and that substantially enhance their understanding(cf. dcc:11).
B. Parties joining forces to audit judges so as to advance their common cause
Each party need not work alone to examine the data concerning the judge in his or her case in search of pattern evidence of wrongdoing. Parties who have appeared before the same judge or have an ongoing case before her can join forces to do so. These similarly situated parties can form a group of strategic thinkers and doers, rather than remain as isolated whiners and losers.
Parties will not be joining forces to search for pattern evidence so as to form a class that brings an action in court against judges. That is a futile exercise, doomed to fail at the hands of the defendant judges’ peers, colleagues, and friends, who will preside over their trials and any appeals, and protect their own and themselves(ol:158).
Rather, it is an exercise in gathering evidence in support of the two-pronged approach(supra ¶4c,d; ol:248) to exposing judges’ wrongdoing.
The parties must join forces to advance a common cause rather than each one work alongside others only to benefit his or her own personal case. They should realize that it is useless for each of them to take on coordinated(jur:88§§a-c) judges in their turf, the courts, where they arbitrarily handle and make rules as they go, and their staff, who must execute their wrongdoing orders lest they be fired without recourse(jur:30§1).
It is foolhardy to take all of them on with the arms of a pro se: ignorance of the law, TV notions of court procedure, lots of self-defeating, disruptive, blinding emotions, and wishful thinking that is no substitute at all for strategic thinking.
C. How a party can go about locating others wronged by the same judge
A party looks up the list of cases on the calendars of the judge in its case, which are:
a. posted on the court’s website or the judge’s webpages on that site; or
b. affixed on the wall outside the judge’s courtroom every motion hearing and trial day and of which a picture can be taken with a smartphone or tablet.
The party extracts from the calendars party names and case docket numbers to find:
1) on the court’s website to download them;
2) in the court’s research room or law library, where they are in paper form;
3) through computer research in the legal databases of:
a) PACER (Public Access to Courts Electronic Records), https://www.pacer.gov/, accessible through any computer;
b) Westlaw, http://web2.westlaw.com/signon/default.wl?vr=2.0&fn=_top&__lrguid=i1eb21045275b4acf89cde9be245fb745&rs=WLW15.04&bhcp=1, and
c) Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/legal-solutions/default.page,
which are accessible through computers and WIFI at the court and public and law school libraries or a subscription later on bought by a group of parties.
4) Those briefs have the contact information of similarly situated parties. Most likely they will be persons, not companies. Ordinary cases brought by persons, even if represented, neither hold as much interest for judges nor command as much of their respect for due process as those filed by the likes of Pacific Coast Docks against NY Association of Importers, represented by big law firms and top lawyers ready to appeal and embarrass sloppy and wrongdoing judges(jur:45¶86).
5) Pro ses are trampled. Their cases can be identified by the absence next to their names of an attorney’s name. Person cases and pro ses are easy prey for wrongdoing judges; and
b. their phone numbers.
1) The phone numbers of parties are not on calendars, but should be on the cover page of their briefs; otherwise, the party names found in the calendars can be used to look up their phone numbers in the phone book or the Internet white pages.
The party uses a well-rehearsed brief message to contact those similarly situated parties, e.g.:
a. I have a case before Judge Z and found out that you do too. She has disregarded the facts and the law in my case. If you feel that way as to your case, you, I, and others like us can join forces to expose her by detecting common points of her wrongdoing that reveal a pattern of wrongdoing. That is convincing evidence to be used in a test case to go before our highest state court and as an incentive for journalists and politicians to expose her.
b. You and I can find other parties using the method I used to find you. When there are five of us, we can meet at a party’s home to search for common points. I can share with you an article explaining this search(ol:274) and templates(ol:280,282) for organizing our work.
D. Meetings of parties are sessions for division of labor and getting work done
Meetings are not social occasions where people who do not want to be alone come together to commiserate. They are not for chatting, so wasteful of time and effort. Sobbing together as they pass the box of Kleenex is not the same as professionally gathering the data, detecting their commonalities, and using them to establish patterns of judges’ wrongdoing.
Meetings are occasions for working. Everybody should come to the meetings with a laptop, a tablet, or a yellow pad and a smartphone. The best meeting place is where there is a large table where people can sit at in business-like fashion. There should also be power strips to plug in all the electronic devices so that nobody need stop working because their device ran out of battery power.
It should be a quiet place. A pool table in the back of a bar on a Saturday night is not conducive to working. The box of Kleenex is for the group members’ profuse sweating, but not because the place is hot and stuffy.
The invitation to the meeting must set forth the preliminary work that each party should have done in preparation for the meeting; and the agenda of the meeting; at the end of it, the agenda will provide the measure of what the group accomplished.
Everybody must bring their documents organized chronologically in a binder or on a pdf, not thrown together in a supermarket plastic bag.
Documents yield the most information when they have been scanned into a searchable pdf. Then when a group member proposes key terms to search for a possible point of commonality, such as a name of a lawyer or a clerk or a date, all group members can open the pdf’s binocular icon and enter those key terms in the search box to look for that term in all their documents.
Rummaging a hundred or hundreds of pages manually and visually every time a term must be searched is time-consuming, exhaustive, and unreliable.
Moreover, pdf’s can be annotated with electronic sticky notes that do not deface the document and can be searched with the search function. Ideas can be committed to writing, not to memory.
The parties should bring their documents preceded by a table listing each one’s title, sender, addressee(s), date, and page number, and bearing a note on whatever makes that document relevant; cf. the summarizing title of this article(ol:274).
A well-prepared table of documents serves as a summary of a party’s case. It can be shared with the group by email in advance so that as the members read it, they can spot a possible point of commonality to search.
See the table of documents template(* >ol:280); see also the table of documents of the main file(* >ToC:i) and its bookmarks.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:280
Meetings are also opportunities for the parties to realize that they eventually will have to contribute financially to the effort to find commonality points; establish patterns; bring them to the attention of journalists(* >ol:250) and politicians; appeal to the highest state court and the U.S. Supreme Court; publicize their effort through intense mass-emailing and social media use.
The parties who agree to join forces must proceed methodically. They can elect a meeting leader. The latter can organize group work by applying the fundamental principle of any organization, i.e., division of labor in accordance with each person’s skills and preferences and the organization’s needs and objectives.
Some members may be more adept at searching for parties’ contact information; if so, they may pass on that information to those members who are more articulate and can communicating with others on the phone or in person.
Every effort should be made to contact and attract the attorneys of represented parties. Their knowledge of the law is priceless.
Tasks of the group of searchers of judicial wrongdoing pattern evidence The initial task of the group is to:a. identify each instance of apparently disregarded or falsely alleged facts, and the law, court rules or any ethical or professional123a provision deemed to have been violated by the judge, clerks, and other insiders169; and apparently relevant characteristics of people, which may later on prove to be correlated, e.g., dismissals and form denials are signed on Fridays when the judge leaves early to play golf at his country club with some lawyers;
b. tabulate the data in a table:
1) with a top horizontal row of labels for classifying facts and provisions:
a) facts, e.g., deadline alleged missed, affidavit missing; date manipulated by clerk; ex parte meeting with opposing counsel; unadvertised auction of assets; prevented or cut short examination or cross-examination of witnesses; and
b) provisions and their citations: e.g., judge appointing spouse, Rules of the NY Chief Judge, 22 NYCRR Part 36.2(c)(3); and
2) in the vertical column on the left are listed the characteristics of people, e.g.:
b) represented by counsel
(1) a solo practitioner
(2) law firm with between 2-10, 11-50, 51+ lawyers
c) parties income range
d) parties educational level
e) area of residence
f) plaintiff or defendant
g) male or female and age
h) kind of party: creditor, debtor, driver, pedestrian, banker, professional, etc.
a) size of law firm where the judge worked before coming to the bench
b) work experience the judge had before coming to the bench:
(1) prosecutor
(2) lawyer at a government agency or legislative branch
(3) lawyer for a company or a public interest entity; etc.
c) gender, age, and years on the bench
d) party affiliation of judge or of appointing officer; etc.
3) square of intersection between the row of headings and the column of characteristics:
a) name of case with docket number and date
b) case decided or pending; etc.
a) law/court clerks, lawyers, auctioneers, accountants, real estate developers, etc.
E. From groping for sense in a fog of data to becoming Champions of Justice
Auditing a judge’s decision is an investigative exercise. At the beginning, the group will not know what is a commonality point or, if so, whether it has any evidentiary value. Patterns are not even suspected until much later, when sense starts to emerge from the points’ relatedness.
To perceive meaningful commonalities, the group must apply the two key elements of social intelligence to understand the dynamics between parties, judges, clerks, lawyers, etc.: what makes people tic –power, money, love, hate, safety, fear, job insecurity, etc.– and what makes the world turn around –interpersonal relations, clan mentality, tradition, values, ideals, the economy, politics–.
This will allow identifying harmonious and conflicting interests between parties so as to recognize who is an ally and who is a foe(Lsch:14§2; ol:52§C; dcc:8¶11).
The effort to find commonalities in cases, parties, and judges can reveal a pattern of bias, conflict of interests, dysfunctionality in the court, turf fighting, schemes among connected people, prejudice, etc.
The tabulation is a data organizing exercise. In its initial stage, the group will not know what is statistically relevant: what happens so frequently or infrequently for that judge, other judges, or people generally that it can only have happened intentionally. So it is a commonality point that forms part of a pattern of some form of wrongdoing(Lsch:17§C).
This requires that at the outset everything be listed. Later on the data will be sorted out into what is or is not a commonality point showing wrongdoing; see the table of commonalities and patterns template(ol:282).
At the end of each meeting, the agenda for what the members should do at home and what they will do at the next meeting should be set. That includes growing the group; getting documents; and networking to be able to present at the right time any incriminating audit results to journalists and presidential candidates(ol:269§2).
The meeting will have been a success if the consensus is, not ‘that guy is a lot of fun. I wish him well’, but rather, ‘Our group leader is a slavemaster… but we got a lot done. We’re gonna get that judge! I’m coming to the next meeting with my friend’.
Working together breeds enthusiasm and optimism. It can coalesce ineffective single parties into a team of achievers with valuable skills that they can teach others in their own and the public interest.
The members will be asked to invest effort, time, and resources to grow the group of parties before their and other judges; and to spot insiders who can be persuaded to become confidential informants(jur:106§c). That is how they can become the organizers of their court’s questers for justice. As such, they will organize other courts in their city, in other state cities, and in other states.
A group that first met in an apartment garage and had to put their computers on a door resting over two trash cans can grow to become a Tea Party-like entity: a national civic movement of people who pursue strategically and with determination their conviction that We the People are the masters of all public servants, including judicial ones, and are entitled to hold them accountable and liable to their victims.
We can become the People’s Champions of Justice(ol:235§C).
This article and its templates are at
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:274
Posted on October 3, 2015October 16, 2015Author Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.Leave a comment on Auditing Judges Exposing judges’ wrongdoing by finding commonalities in their disregard of the facts and the law that reveal patterns of wrongdoing that denies due process and equal protection of the law	Business proposal for drawing business opportunities from the untapped news, publishing, and legal assistance market and the huge voting block of dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems and the victims of wrongdoing judges by taking advantage of the Presidential Election Campaign	By
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net, RicCordero@verizon.net, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@outlook.com
Dear Lawyers, Journalists, and Recruiters,
1. This is a business proposal for developing the business opportunities available in the untapped market of judicial unaccountability reporting and the voting bloc of dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems and victims of unaccountable, wrongdoing judges by taking advantage of the 2016 Campaign. It is based on my study of the judiciary and its judges:
I submit that it is in your business interest to read jur:21§§1-3, which discuss official statistics, reports, and statements revealing how unaccountability entices judges to grab benefits through wrongdoing that is riskless for them but harmful to millions of parties and other people.
My study contains a business proposal that will appeal to you and your journalist- and lawyer-clients. It concerns the money to be made:
a) “Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(jur:119§E); and
b) advising and representing the many parties who having learned that the judges in their cases failed to respect the injunction in their codes of conduct, i.e., to “avoid even the appearance of improprieties”123a, will want to retain your lawyer-clients celebrated(ol:258¶18) for having exposed such improprieties, to recuse the judges, vacate their decisions, reopen and retry their cases, and obtain compensation for the material, physical, and moral harm that they caused those parties; other people and entities who were foreseeably harmed by those judges will also prefer to hire your clients because of their expertise in the issue.
Judging from the flood of motions provoked by cases of judicial wrongdoing and police corruption, this market is likely to be huge1. This is especially so if it implicates judges who have been on the bench for a long time, are sitting on the highest court of their jurisdiction, and have operated in coordination with other judges and parties, e.g., trustees(jur:32§§2-5), guardians, and others whom they appointed, and lawyers who appeared before them, all of whom form a deep pocket.
Cf. The Youth Law Center helped expose the ‘kids for cash’ case where judges in PA sent juveniles to for-profit youth jails, which were paid by the state per juvenile housed therein and gave the judges kickbacks. It reached a $2.5 million settlement in a class action against the jails.
Doctors, police officers, priests, and their respective institutions can be held accountable and liable. They are precedent for treating judges and judiciaries likewise. Judges’ wrongdoing can be the outrageous issue that each of the all-too many presidential candidates needs to stand out of the pack. One can become the Champion of the millions of Judicial Victims, who constitute a huge untapped voting bloc. Journalists covering such candidate as they keep exposing judges’ wrongdoing can benefit from ‘scandal sells copy’ for years to come and win a Pulitzer Prize.
7. Your team of journalists and lawyers can expose the “appearance”(ol:265) of unaccountable judges running a bankruptcy fraud scheme(jur:xxxv); audit judges’ decisions in search for connections, patterns, and trends of wrongdoing(jur:132§§3-6); probe the NSA for involvement in the electronic concealment of funds(ol:190§§A,B); and publish a report(jur:122§§2-3) at a multimedia public conference(jur:97§1) to which all presidential candidates are invited(ol:253), causing a scandal that changes our government and politics.
The below statement elaborates on exposing judges’ wrongdoing as a business venture that takes promotional advantage of the 2016 Election.
9. I offer to present this proposal to you and your clients at a video conference or in person. Thus, I look forward to hearing from you.
This letter is at
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:271
for drawing business opportunities from the untapped news, publishing, and legal assistance market and the huge voting block of dissatisfied users of the legal and judicial systems and the victims of wrongdoing judges by taking advantage of the Presidential Election Campaign
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol:272
This article may be republished and redistributed, provided it is
The market of dissatisfied users of our judicial system, in general, and victims of wrongdoing judges, in particular, is huge. Judges are unaccountable(ol:190¶¶1-7) so they risklessly disregard the facts and the law applicable to cases and grab benefits by abusing their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that determine their lives: In the last 226 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed(jur:21§a).
Compare14 this to the 2,217 federal judges, including justices and magistrates, in office13 on September 30, 2013; and to all the members of Congress, which only has 535 of them, who have been on the news, censured, or imprisoned for wrongdoing15.
Once politicians recommend, nominate, and confirm a person to a federal judgeship, they hold him or her unaccountable for fear of retaliation17a. If you enjoyed life-tenure and could treat the people you did business with however you wanted, would you be tempted to abuse your power for your benefit?
The analysis of this untapped market is part of my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the only ones who affect the national public and who are the models for their state counterparts:
The proposed business has two aspects, each of which is a profit center(jur:119§1):
“Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting”(jur:81§1), from your journalist-clients investigating and disseminating related news to the creation of a research, publishing, educational, advocacy, and for-profit institute(jur:130§5)
advising and representing the countless parties who having learned that the judges in their cases failed to respect the injunction in their codes of conduct, i.e., to “avoid even the appearance of improprieties”123a, will retain your lawyer-clients celebrated(ol:271¶5) for having exposed such improprieties, to recuse those judges, vacate their decisions, reopen and retry their cases, and obtain compensation for the material, physical, and moral harm that they caused the parties; other people and entities who were foreseeably harmed by those judges will also seek out your lawyers because of their expertise in the issue(ol:256§§1,2).
To estimate the size of this untapped market of dissatisfied users of the judicial system, including those who have fallen victim to wrongdoing judges, consider the following:
more than 100 million people are parties to the more than 50 million suits filed every year4,5 in state and federal courts; each party may have more than one person;
scores of millions of people are parties to cases pending in court; e.g., the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 has affected millions of people on the coastal as well as inland states, many of whom are still battling it out in the courts;
even more millions of parties deem that their cases were decided wrongly or wrongfully; e.g., the Walmart class action involved two million plaintiffs, all of them disappointed when the Supreme Court decided against them(ol:85§3); even more millions of people are critical of the Supreme Court for having become politicized, deciding the 2000 Gore v. Bush election, and protective of big business at the expense of small business, employees, consumers, and even our democracy, especially after its decision in Citizens United; and
the even greater number of people connected with those parties and who have suffered injury in fact as a result of judges’ wrongdoing, e.g., friends and family, employees and employers, creditors and debtors, service providers, such as restaurants, hotels, car rentals, etc.
This is the optimal time(ol:196§F) for the proposed business because it can attract the support of people who are at the top of politics and getting extensive media coverage: presidential candidates(ol:261§§C,D).
They are in an unprecedentedly crowded field: 15 and counting. Each of them needs to stand out of the pack and become the recognized champion of a popular cause, lest he or she not survive the early primaries, after which donations to those in the bottom tier will dry up; disillusioned volunteers will go elsewhere; and the media will stop covering them.
Each presidential candidate can turn the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing and the advocacy of judicial reform(jur:158§§6-8) into a central issue of his or her platform and thereby draw support from that huge untapped voting bloc: dissatisfied users and victims of the legal system.
The latter have been abused by the judges who disregarded the facts and the law in their cases. They are passionate about exposing their abusers, vindicating their rights, and obtaining compensation. For them it is personal, a quest for justice. They have three key demands for the candidates:
take a public, unequivocal stance on judges’ unaccountability in defiance of the democratic tenet in ‘government, not of men, but by the rule of law’ol:5fn6: Nobody Is Above the Law;
expose those candidates and politicians(ol:231§3) who recommended, nominated, and confirmed(jur:77§§5,6) judicial candidates and have held them unaccountable as ‘our men and women on the bench’; candidates, such as the governors who have never been members of Congress, will gain the most from impugning the honesty of candidates who have connived (jur:88§§a-c) with wrongdoing justices(71§4) and judges213 against the public interest; and
1) ask his or her staff to investigate judges’ wrongdoing;
2) encourage journalists to join a Watergate-like(jur:4¶¶10-14) generalized media investigation that turns the issue into a scandal(ol:199§§H,I) and keeps the candidate on the news as accuser-in-chief; and
3) call for nationally televised hearings(ol:201§J), similar to those of the Senate Watergate Committee –which led to President Nixon’s resignation on August 8, 1974– and the 9/11 Commission.
The candidate who meets those demands will become the victims’ Champion of Justice(ol:201§ K) and receive their most vocal, practical, and financial support. The more intense the national outrage at judges’ wrongdoing, the more dissatisfied users/victims will rally behind the Champion.
That outrage will validate the work of a new(jur:2§2) media breed: judicial unaccountability reporters(ol:146). They can expect to win a Pulitzer Prize and other rewards(ol:3§F) for causing a scandalous, politically charged version of what already happened once:
Life magazine revealed the financial improprieties of Justice Abe Fortas, and although they did not amount even to wrongdoing, he had to resign on 14May69(jur:92§d). These reporters can pick up where The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico left off their series of articles107a suspecting Then-Judge, Now-Justice Sotomayor of concealing assets107c, and pursue the leads(ol:194§E) of her case as a Trojan horse into the circumstances(ol:191¶6) enabling wrongdoing in the Federal Judiciary.
Recruiters who think and proceed strategically can earn money and national recognition by forming a team of journalists(jur:xlvi§H) and lawyers who further investigate the J. Sotomayor case and either persuade one or more candidates to make a denunciation like Emile Zola’s I accuse! (jur:98§2) or make it themselves at a conference(ol:253) to which they invite all candidates.
Recruiters will thus make an investment that will produce dividends throughout the 2016 Campaign and thereafter. It will become their niche market.
So I offer to present(ol:197§G) this business proposal to you and all of them.
Format AsidePosted on October 2, 2015October 28, 2015Author Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.Leave a comment on Business proposal for drawing business opportunities from the untapped news, publishing, and legal assistance market and the huge voting block of dissatisfied users of the judicial and legal systems and the victims of wrongdoing judges by taking advantage of the Presidential Election Campaign	Proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc	Dear Users of the legal and judicial systems,
Posted on September 15, 2015October 28, 2015Author Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.Leave a comment on Making a documentary on the proposal for presidential candidates to raise the issue of unaccountable, wrongdoing judges and thus draw support from a huge untapped voting bloc	Posts navigation