From: Richard Cordero
Sent: Oct 17, 2014 8:05 PM
To: Jim Davis , firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Organizing talkshows into a media force and rallying point for honest judiciaries and public accountability
Strategic thinking to turn a talkshow into a rallying point for those who have experienced judges’ unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing, and who can implement a realistic plan of action to expose judges’ wrongdoing, outrage the public, and cause it to make such wrongdoing a decisive issue of the mid-term and presidential elections From a talkshow to a civic movement that brings about public servants’ accountability to We the People:
The People’s Sunrise
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
A. An anecdote that shows a talkshow’s potential
for empowering the People
- The following anecdote provides a realistic basis for a strategy that shows how a talkshow host and guests on a show dedicated to the issue of judges’ unaccountability(* >jur:21§A) and consequent riskless wrongdoing(* >jur:5§3) can turn what normally is a one-off event into a series of shows and then a regular program that serves as a venue for ever more judicial wrongdoing victims to rally and gradually grow into a civic movement that asserts.
2. “ This is how Author Larry Hohol’s homepage, www.TheLuzerneCountyRailroad.com, describes his talk with Host Sue Henry as part of a Barnes & Noble Author Event about his book The Luzerne County Railroad on judicial corruption in Pennsylvania: “The scheduled 20 minute appearance was extended to two hours after the switchboard lit up solid with phone calls from listeners”.
3. It is quite rare for media stations to throw off their carefully matched schedules of shows and sponsors to respond on the fly to even overwhelming audience reaction to their current show. That this happened demonstrates that even within the limited geographic reach of an FM station, i.e., WILK-FM, 103.1, his story of judicial abuse of power and betrayal of public trust stroke a cord with the audience. This experience supports the reasonable expectation that people elsewhere would react likewise to similar accounts because judges have been allowed to engage in such conduct with impunity long enough to have victimized and outraged many people everywhere. They have become Judges Above the Law.”
4. This anecdote with my comment on it appears in my study of the Federal Judiciary titled Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting.*
* The file containing the study together with emails turned into short articles or letters on specific related subjects can be downloaded through any of the following links. All (parenthetical) blue text references herein are keyed to the several parts and pages in that file. This article is at * >ol:146.
5. A leader giving direction out of a problem, not a beggar asking for pity
a. You, Advocates of Honest Judiciaries, should use your time on a talkshow to make a professional presentation of the subject rather than of your personal cases. It should appeal to the most people in the audience because it explains the underlying circumstances and forms of judges’ wrongdoing so that as many individuals in the audience as possible feel that you are enlightening their understanding of a most confusing situation:
b.They went to court for justice, but came out abused. They will feel thankful to your for reassuring them that they did not do anything wrong so that it was not their fault. It was the judges who took advantage of them.
c. Compare that approach of giving to the audience to the one where you concentrate on the details of your personal experience and demand that the audience give you their time and attention to show interest in your case and in addition give you their support. This is the attitude of beggars preying on the audience’s pity.
d. You and your colleagues are leaders. You take people to a new understanding of their predicament and show the way for them to deal with it under your guidance. This requires strategic(ol:6) thinking to craft a concrete and realistic plan of action.
6. Appearance segments: problem presentation,
plan of action, audience reaction
a. You can conceive your appearance in three well-defined, purposeful, and integrated segments.
b. Scene setup: presenting causes and forms of judicial wrongdoing
1. Connivance between politicians and judges: At the root of judicial wrongdoing is the connivance between judges and politicians. Politicians help put on the bench people of the same ilk as themselves. They recommend, nominate, confirm, appoint, endorse, donate to, and campaign for, judicial candidates on whom they have something and who will never forget to whom they owe their office.
2. From those judges politicians expect that they at the very least uphold the legislation that they have passed or will pass to enact their political agenda; and that they be lenient toward the politicians if on charges of their own corruption they have to appear in court before those judges or their peers.
3. For their part, judges depend on politicians to be reelected or elevated to a higher court, for they do not have the power to promote their own to a higher court. They are connected by a mutually beneficial relation that is essentially inimical to the fair and impartial application of the law to Joe Schmock, the kiosk on the corner, and you, one-time, run-of-the-mill parties from whom judges cannot expect any problem, never mind any benefit.
4. The question whether appointing, electing, or other form of selecting judges is preferable should be left unanswered. At this point, the only concern is to expose the nature and gravity of judges’ wrongdoing and their practice of it in such widespread, routine, and coordinated fashion as to constitute their and their judiciary’s institutionalized modus operandi. This should outrage the public and stir it up to force politicians to investigate and hold judges accountable and undertake reform.
a. Pervasive secrecy: Judges operate in pervasive secrecy by holding all their adjudicative, administrative, policy-making, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors. Such pervasive secrecy breeds abuse and ensures their riskless wrongdoing. What is not known cannot be controlled. Uncontrolled power is the hallmark of ‘absolute power, the one that corrupts absolutely’28, 32.
b. Retaliation of judges: Judges can retaliate against politicians that authorize or allow investigations against them by declaring their laws unconstitutional17a or interpreting them in disregard of their black letter or intent. the power of retaliation that judges wield against politicians who allow investigations against wrongdoing judges to be conducted. In addition, judges retaliate through many forms of chicanery, petit forms of harassment or disregard of procedural requirements that can doom a case and exhaust a party financially and emotionally(Lsch:17§C). This is judicial power wielded as a sword.
c. Forms of wrongdoing: Judges gain material213(jur:27§2), professional69(56§§e-f), and social benefits(62§g; a&p:1¶2nd) from their wrongdoing. This is judicial power wielded as a spoon.
d. Laying out a concrete and realistic plan of action
In this segment, you can briefly describe what you propose to do to establish a fundamental principle underlying the exposure of judges’ wrongdoing
In a democracy, We the People are the source of all public power and the masters of all public servants, including judges, who are hired to perform services for the benefit of the People and are accountable to their masters for their performance. The People did not entrust, and it is unreasonable even to think that they would ever have entrusted, a portion of their power to servants who in turn would make themselves immune to accounting to their masters for their exercise of such power.
e. Hence, you can state that your objective is to bring about judicial reform based on transparency, accountability, discipline, and liability to compensate the victims of judges’ wrongdoing(Lsch:10¶6).
f. Those principles can be implemented through citizen boards of judicial accountability and discipline(jur:160§8).
5. Your and the audiences’ experience of judges’ wrongdoing
a. Your experience to illustrate different categories of wrongdoing
b. Each of you and your colleagues can briefly describe, in two minutes or less, a different kind of judicial wrongdoing experience had by you or another person, such as:
i. foreclosure on mortgages;
ii. execution of wills
iii. handling of criminal cases and sentencing;
iv. dismissal of complaints against judges
v. appointment of guardians for children or the elderly;
vi. divorce cases involving custody of children or partition of matrimonial assets
c. Take calls from the public
i. Then the host can open the line for him to take calls from those in the audience who want to give a brief account of their experience with wrongdoing judges. You and your colleagues can comment on it as appropriate to try to highlight what is the most important feature: patterns of wrongdoing that point, not to individual rogue judges, but rather to coordination between judges who thereby make their wrongdoing more riskless, effective, and profitable (jur:122§§2-3)
2. Using the talkshow to appear as professionals and leaders
Appearing on a talkshow is a great opportunity for you and your colleagues to demonstrate that the problem is not with you: You are not a bunch of sore losers in court; you are not ‘disgruntled litigants’ who have nothing to offer but the hot air of your bumbling pro se handling of your own cases in court.
3. Rather, you are professionals. You have studied the problem and understand its causes and forms: Judges who are held unaccountable by politicians and media people much less courageous than the host(jur:81§1). As a result, they engage in riskless wrongdoing that benefits themselves and a clique of insiders.
4. Neither you nor your colleagues can wing it. To begin with, you should only take to the meeting with host two or three of the most articulate, self-controlled, and knowledgeable people. If you take more, everybody will want to put in their piece of performance and you end up with a discordant mob of people whining about their personal problems. It will make a terrible impression.
5. Remember, this is not an opportunity for you or your colleagues to vent your frustration and anger at the judges.
6. Rather, this is an occasion for you and your colleagues to show to the host that you are a group of highly polished civic movement leaders. You are people who can attract the attention of the thousands and thousands of people out there who have been victimized by judges but who can do little more than scream the pain of the injustice that they have suffered.
a. Thus, be professional.
b. Hold yourself to high standards of professionalism.
c. Make a highly organized and informative presentation of the issue. Practice your roles!
d. Discard personal trivia and choose content that will inform, outrage, and stir up into action the largest audience.
e. Show that you are capable of leading a movement to coalesce all victims of wrongdoing judges into a civic movement. The Tea Party is precedent therefor. However, your main concern is not lower taxes, but rather Equal Justice Under Law administered by judges accountable to We the People.
D. What the talkshow host stands to gain
1. new audience to be tapped and developed
2. At the meeting with the host, you should convince him that there is an untapped audience who can regularly listen to his program and to you and your colleagues. The passionate commitment of that audience in search for justice can attract sponsors. The latter may be regular commercial advertisers or civil rights organizations and foundations willing to underwrite his program. You need to show that you are business people.
3. You show concern for the host’s money-making needs and he takes care of your need to establish an avenue of communication with the public through which the latter can also communicate with you. This is part of strategic thinking. This audience can also express themselves on a website opened by the host and you that can be developed into a money-making center by selling advertisement and receiving donations. You need money to spread your message widely, cover travel expenses, organize presentations and conferences, etc.
4.Launching a generalized media investigation of judicial wrongdoing.
5. The host together with your support can contact journalists that to let them know there is a story worth investigating and an audience avidly awaiting their reports: the story of judges’ wrongdoing. This work needs your leadership.
6. Eventually, it can become a self-reinforcing process because the more the audience share their experience of judicial wrongdoing victimization and journalists report their findings, the more public outrage will be provoked and the stronger the demand will be for more investigation and reports.
A. That is how you can launch a Watergate-like generalized media investigation of judges’ wrongdoing. It can be guided by a query with a proven devastating impact in that it caused the resignation of President Nixon in 1974 and the incarceration of all its White House aides(jur:4¶¶10-14). It can be reformulated thus:
1. What did President Obama and the Supreme Court Justices know about Justice Sotomayor’s wrongdoing –suspected by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico- with the complicity of the other justices, judges, and staff of the Federal Judiciary, and when did they know it?
2. Consider the case of Former Arizona Superior and Appellate Court Judge and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the alleged corruption in Arizona courts144d
3. Hold out the prospect that the public outrage provoked by the audience’s experiences and the journalists’ findings can turn judicial wrongdoing and reform into a dominating issue of public debate that be-comes decisive of the impending mid-term election campaign, which will lead right into the primaries and the 2016 presidential election campaign. An outraged public can force politicians to:
a. take a public, unambiguous stand on judges’ wrongdoing;
b. call for official investigations of judges’ wrongdoing
c. undertake judicial legislated(jur:158§§6-7) judicial reform that imposes concrete duties of transparency, accountability, discipline, and liability on judges and their judiciary to compensate their victims.
There is no doubt that your meeting with the host and eventually with other media people like him offer a great opportunity to turn it into a multiplier of your presentation to the public and journalists of the causes and forms of judicial wrongdoing and the need for reform. It can be the beginning of the formation of a civic movement that forces politicians to undertake such reform and holds judges accountable: the People’s Sunrise(ol:29).
You can be the leader in building with hosts and journalists a Coalition for Justice that multiplies those presentations.
I look forward to hearing from you all and in light of the facts discussed at ol:19§D, will appreciate it if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
Dare trigger history!(jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at: