From Dr. Richard Cordero — a request to work together and cooperate and some great ideas

Dear Readers;

The purpose of this blog is to promote truth and justice.  We must work together. There are too many dark and evil entities out there in the form of lawyers, court appointed workers and companies, judges and others who are victimizing and terrorizing wards and their families.  Justice and truth must prevail.

From Dr. Cordero– another advocate for justice:

Dear Ms. Denison,

Thank you for your email and for your words of appreciation.

You may post the previous email as well as its follow-up, which is below.

Can you, your coreaders, and we work together as proposed in those two emails?

I look forward to hearing from you.


Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City


First join forces to inform & outrage public re wrongdoing judges, remove them, then new legislation


Dear Mr. Roland and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,


Thank you for all your emails concerning my 3-step plan of action for exposing wrongdoing judges and bringing about judicial reform. I appreciate your kind words about it.


In particular, I am encouraged by the possibility that we may be able to work together. As I have repeatedly stated, we, advocates of honest judiciaries, need to join forces or we will continue to achieve only what we have achieved so far: nothing( ol:127¶4 ).


*NOTE: All ( parenthetical ) and [ bracketed ] blue text is references to supporting sections § or paragraphs¶, and foot- and endnote superscripts, respectively, found in the study downloadable through either of these links:

or >ol:127

or >ol:127

or >ol:127

or >ol:127


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 me know by emailing me at .


  1. Timing: the public must be informed of the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing before politicians adopt window dressing provisions


  1. Your points, Mr. Roland, are well taken and presuppose for their implementation that we join forces. The pertinence of your 5 th point should be highlighted because it deals with the critical issue of timing. You wrote:


  1. If you can, try to present the more appealing and easily understood reforms to the voters before the referendum, because it might persuade some to cast a yes vote.”


  1. Wrongdoing judges now on the bench will still be there to misapply in self-interest any new statutory and constitutional provisions


  1. Even constitutional amendments, let alone a statute, will leave in place wrongdoing judges to apply them. They will apply the new provisions in the same manner as they have current ones up to now: to protect themselves and each other to the detriment of parties and the rest of the public:


  1. Federal chief circuit judges systematically dismiss 99.82% of misconduct complaints against their peers( jur:10-14 ) and together with other judges in circuit councils 96 ( jur:20 ) deny up to 100% of petitions to review those dismissals( jur:24§§b-d ). In effect, they have arrogated to themselves the power to nullify in self-interest through their dishonest application the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S. Code §§ 351-364 18a ), enacted by the other two branches to enable any person to file a complaint against a federal judge (hereafter the Act).


  1. Likewise, they routinely disregard 28 U.S.C. §455 40 , which imposes on them the duty to dis-qualify themselves on their own motion where “[their] impartiality might reasonably be ques-tioned” or where they have a bias 271 or conflict of interests affecting them or their relatives, never mind their denial out of hand of motions by parties for their disqualification on such grounds 272 .


  1. Today’s wrongdoing judges will not be forced to respect the provisions against their own inter-ests contained in a new ink-besmirched piece of paper issued in future from Congress or a consti-tutional convention any more than they have been forced by current similarly besmirched paper. Their self-serving performance of their office will ensure that no complaint or motion ever crosses whatever new threshold is set for judges to take disciplinary action against themselves.


  1. Politicians who do not investigate for wrongdoing ‘their men and women on the bench’ will not adopt effective provisions against them


  1. Politicians have no interest in adopting, much less enforcing, provisions against judges, whom they recommended, nominated, and confirmed to judgeships( 77§§5-6 ). In fact, they disregard their own checks and balances on judges( 50¶¶95-97 ) in the form of the Annual Report that they require the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 10 to submit to Congress 23a with the statistics 19a on judges’ handling of complaints against them.


  1. Through their covering-up and encouraging disregard, politicians act as accessories after the judges’ Act-nullifying conduct in the year covered by a Report and accessories before such conduct in the following year.


  1. By so holding ‘their own men and women on the bench’ unaccountable, politicians expect them to declare the statutes that form a party’s legislative agenda constitutional or unconstitutional 17a , as the case may be. Just examine how the majority of 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court are in har-mony with the party affiliation of the presidents who nominated the several justices.


  1. Likewise, politicians expect that by not investigating judges, the latter will have no reason to retaliate against them if they appear before their bench charged with their own wrongdoing 15 .


  1. Only an informed and outraged public can force wrongdoing judges out of the bench and hold the remaining and new judges accountable


  1. Before any referendum is held, and even before any discussion begins about amending the Constitution –rendered opportune after Michigan became last June the 34 th state to call for a constitu-tional convention ( jur:139fn 270 >Ln:309 ) -, the public must be informed about the nature, extent, and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing( ol:127¶4 ) and its harm to the public’s property, liberty, and lives( jur:5§3 ).


  1. Indeed, the national public will be outraged upon learning that the unaccountability of federal judges, who constitute the only national jurisdiction, induces them to engage risklessly in wrongdoing. The latter includes the judges’ arbitrary and harmful disregard for the constraints of due process as well as for the law applicable to, and the facts of, the cases that parties bring before them, which judges fob off with dishonest adjudicative services( ol:128 § c ).


  1. Judges also do wrong by participating in criminal activity, such as concealment of assets to evade taxes and launder money( 65§§1-3 ), whereby they serve themselves indulgence in boundless conduct. By what they wrongfully deny others and allow themselves to do they usurp the status of Judges Above the Law.


  1. The information about wrongdoing judges’ abusive and unequal treatment will outrage the pub-lic. It will also make understandable the far-reaching changes in statutory( 158§7 ) and consti-tutional provisions necessary to ensure that judges comply with the rule of law and administer to others and themselves Equal Justice Under Law, e.g.,


  1. the establishment of independent citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline( 160§8 )


  1. establishment of an inspector general for the judiciary ( 158§6 );


  1. the elimination of tenured judgeships;


  1. the holding of all judicial meetings on an open door basis( ol:127 ¶ 4a ); etc.


  1. A public outraged through information and assertively demanding those changes is indispensable. Without it, neither conniving politicians nor wrongdoing judges can be reasonably expected to make changes entailing their loss of power or privileged status.


  1. Nor will wrongdoing judges apply any change honestly to give it effect in practice, for their interest lies in a cover-up and the frustration of all accountability measures. This calls for their removal from the bench. It can be effected under the current constitutional provision of Art. III, Sec. 1 12b , which allows the holding of a judgeship only “ during good Behaviour ” 12a .


  1. Only an outraged public can generate the opinion pressure needed to cause the resignation or impeachment of wrongdoing judges, the way it caused S.Ct. Justice Abe Fortas to resign in 1969 ( 92§d )…or to terminate the careers of politicians indifferent to its demands, the way voters in the Virginia primaries terminated the career of HR Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor.


  1. Only politicians frightened at the prospect of having their political careers similarly terminated can find it in their highest interest, survival, to push through far-reaching statutory provisions and constitutional amendments for judicial reform and ensure that they are effectively applied.


  1. Information about wrongdoing judges can enlighten the public about its status as the source of political power in ‘government of, by, and for the people’ 172 and about the need and its means( ol: 129¶9 ) to assert such status. It can so outrage the public as to stir it up to change the We the People -government balance of power:


  1. The People are the employer of public officers, including judicial ones, and can change the terms of employment, which they can enforce through citizen boards rather than those officers to require transparency of performance, accountability, disci-pline, and liability to compensate their wrongdoing’s victims.


  1. An informed and outraged public can develop into an assertive, Tea Party-like civic movement: the People ’s Sunrise( jur:164§9 ).


  1. The time is now, before the elections and a constitutional convention, for us to join forces to inform and outrage the people


  1. I have proposed a 3-step plan of action( ol:127 ) for judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform: read the study of it( title ), continue it, and propose action. The proposed action is reasonable and feasible in terms of effort and money: to inform through presentations( Lsch:9 ) of:


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


  1. investigative activities( ol:115 ), e.g., the pursuit of two stories( ol:100 ) that can outrage the public at the nature, extent , and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing in connivance with politicians :


1). the President Obama-Justice Sotomayor story and the Follow the money! investigation; and


2) the Federal Judiciary-NSA story and the Follow it wirelessly! investigation; and


  1. the material and moral rewards( ol:3§F ) that can be earned by pursuing those activities and stories, such as winning a Pulitzer Prize, being played in a blockbuster movie, and receiving the recognition of a grateful nation as We the People ’s Champions of Justice.


  1. The presentations are to be made to professionals( 128 § 4 ) and graduate students( 129§b ), such as:


  1. journalists and media outlets ( ol:22 , 26 , 88 ) invited to private meetings or press conferences;


  1. graduate schools of:


1) journalism(ol:54; Lsch:23)


2) law(Lsch:1, 21) and


3) business(jur:104¶¶236-237)


4) Information Technology(ol:42, 60);


  1. public interest entities( jur:86§4 );


  1. political meetings( ol:51 , 58 ); etc.


  1. Swapping emails among us will get us nowhere.


  1. Sending just one person to Congress, such as HR Candidate Andy Ostrowski, for him to persuade as many among the other 434 HR members as necessary, who are limited to a 2-year mandate and from day 1 are working on their ree-lection, to work against their own interest by taking on life-tenured unaccountable federal judges, is a mission impossible. If we do not provide Mr. Ostrowski with the support of like-minded candidates and eventually elected ones not only in the House, but also in the Senate, as well as the much more important support of an informed, outraged, and assertive national public, we too will fail in our effort at exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform.


  1. Thus, are we willing to join forces and, if so, work actively, not just provide each other moral support, to implement that plan of action?


  1. Timing is of the essence: The public should be informed and outraged before the mid-term election; the invaluable help of graduate students and others should be sought at the beginning of the academic year.


  1. How can you contribute to arranging the proposed presentations?


I look forward to hearing from you.


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




Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Judicial Discipline Reform

New York City

See also: >ol:127

or >ol:127

or >ol:127

or >ol:127

or >ol: 1 27


If you cannot download the file through any of those links, please let Dr. Cordero know by emailing him at .



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


1 thought on “From Dr. Richard Cordero — a request to work together and cooperate and some great ideas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s